Guys, I was wondering, does the 512K L2 cache make a difference in the Folding process? I wouldnt think so. I would think that the Colck speed in Athlon XP's would be better than the cache size. But I could be wrong. Just a question I thought up.

I've been trying to find out what really effects F@H's performance. Clock speed affects it up to a point, but instructions play a much more prominent role. For example, my 2500+ running 3DNow performs at the level of a PIII 800MHz running SSE. You're probably thinking it's not possible, but I assure you it is. Give the 2500+ SSE and you see the role clock speed plays. So I don't know, there are a number of factors. Clock speed is definitely important when talking about Tinkers. It takes that same 800MHz box nearly 5 days to finish a Tinker, whereas it takes me less than 2. I don't think cache really plays that much of a role either because the 2500+ performs on par with the A64 3200+.

Thats what I was thinking. I have all my machines running on SSE, no lockups either. The Barton dont have any different instructions sets, just the cache size is larger, right? Nothing different that would affect folding. Cause now with my 2700+, its folding a frame almost as fast as my 3200+. 2167MHZ compared to 2205Mhz. Its a difference of about 15 seconds a frame. What I am going to try to do, is lower the fsb on my barton to get it as close to the speed as the 2700+ as I can, and then see, if it makes any difference. I know there could be a million variables to set the results off, but its worth a try tho.

The only problem with that comparison, and it's something I read about on the F@H forums, is that each frame is different, meaning that you can't directly compare them. You'd have to use the same WU and the same steps. There's a way to do that, give me a sec.